The Dark Side of Women’s Requests of Progressive Men

Mark Greene asks, “Do some women who encourage men to be more emotional and engaged, end up losing respect for the men who do so?”

Late last night, I followed a series of tweets by GMP Editor Joanna Schroeder who was in a conversation about men and the expression of emotions.

At one point Schroeder said the following:

I’m having a hard time formulating all my issues here. It boggles my mind that we’ve been asking [men] to be more emotional and engaged, and when they become emotional and engaged we say, “That’s too much!” I mean, talk about expecting perfection. Life is growth and effort.

I went to sleep thinking about a question which haunts me on an ongoing basis. For all of us. Culturally. And that question is: Do some women who encourage men, as Joanna says, to “be more emotional and engaged” end up losing respect for the men who do so?

I admit it could take a decade or two to unpack all the implications of the phrase “be more emotional and engaged”. This request by women to men covers a vast range of relational, emotional, and functional markers. It means very different things to different people. I take it to mean, at its base, that men are 1) being asked to increase emotional communication and 2) address basic issues of fairness in how gender roles in households are organized. If the stereotypical 1950’s dad worked his job and did little to help raise the kids or clean the house, the modern man is asked to be much more engaged, and in some cases to take over the home and child rearing while wives pursue their careers.

What percentage of women are actually asking some variation on this of their men? Is this request coming out of feminist quarters, or is it a function of the breakdown of gender silos, or what exactly? They’re good questions, but regardless of the answers, I think we can all agree the trend is out there.

So, if I ended my day thinking about the tweets Joanna sent, I ran smack into the other bookend this morning—a book review by Liz Mundy of the San Francisco Chronicle. She is reviewing a novel by British author Rachel Cusk titled Aftermath: On Marriage and Seperation.

Mundy writes:

Not long ago, in an online blog of the Wall Street Journal, a wife made a confession. A high-earning editor and the breadwinner in her family, she admitted that she resents her husband for being supportive and domestically hands-on. Far from being grateful that he makes her job and family life possible by taking on the role of primary caregiver to their son, she feels burdened and jealous. While some of her objections are fair – supporting a household is scary, as men have long known – others, she acknowledged, aren’t.

Her piece is a reminder that women, like men, can be emotionally retrograde even as they are progressive and ambitious; it’s not always men who have trouble adapting to female achievement and female earning.

The same dynamic is at work in “Aftermath,” Rachel Cusk’s bleak and rather bravely unsympathetic memoir of marital dissolution. Cusk, a British novelist, sketches a scenario whereby she maneuvered her husband into the role of househusband, then scorned him for occupying it. She is not sure whom to blame for this radical inconsistency: her feminism, her parents, her schooling, or simply whatever was in the water when she was growing up.

It got me thinking, maybe this whole gender role adjustment thing is a hell of a lot harder than we know. Because it’s not just about men taking on new roles and ways of being, its about women and men unpacking the very real and conflicted emotions the reality of this can create. Its fine for a woman to wish for a husband who will stay home with the kids a support her career. But what if that woman then wakes up one morning resenting her husband for it? Now imagine how he feels.

Is there some vast emotional and sexual landscape that exists in direct conflict with the modern women’s request for men to “be more emotional and engaged?” Do some women struggle with what Mundy calls the emotionally retrograde side; yearning for a more traditional man even as they seek an egalitarian marriage?

It’s a question that begs a larger conversation.

—

Mark Greene’s new book REMAKING MANHOOD–Available now on Kindle Reader for Windows, Macs, Android, iPhones and iPads

Remaking Manhood is a collection of Mark Greene’s most powerful articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement. Mark’s articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 100,000 FB shares and 10 million page views. Get the free Kindle Reader app for any device here.

Good Men Project Executive Editor Mark Greene’s new book, REMAKING MANHOOD is a collection of Mark's most powerful articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement. Remaking Manhood is available on Amazon's free Kindle Reader app for all Android, Windows, and Apple devices.

Mark's articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 150,000 FB shares and five million page views. He writes and talks men's Issues at Salon, Shriver Report, Huffington Post, HLN, the BBC, and the New York Times. Mark and his wife, therapist Dr. Saliha Bava, live in New York City.

Comments

comments

Comments

There are many opportunities available to create the type of changes in society that would benefit both men and women. One thing seems clear, unilateral approaches, like that of feminism, don’t work. Their approach is reliant upon exascerbating divisions based on the selective condemnation of gender bias. What one side of the gender coin does impacts the other, for better or worse. In the new world where the unpredictably work and career are increasingly defining both men and women, flexilibilty of identity and role are essential.

Ummm… which approach would that be? There is no single “feminist” strategy for fighting entrenched gender inequality – although lumping feminism into one narrow definition and then dismissing it certainly helps keep male supremacy in place.

Agreed. There is nothing unilateral about feminism. It is a wide ranging and extremely diverse ideology that runs the gamut of social and political strategies. You might as well claim that Christianity’s approaches are unilateral.

@ ccd: I think the point you raise cuts to the core of the primary problem men have with feminism; it’s lack of consistency and habit of ignoring blatant double standards on myriad issues relative to role changes and equality. Feminism”s lack of commitment to being held accountable for these mistakes is part of the problem.
It is devastating to tell one’s husband he should be the SAHD only to later discover that because he did exactly what you asked of him, to make this great sacrifice, that he is no longer attractive to you. All men want to know is what are the new rules and once they have been agreed upon that there will be accountability and ownership. Throwing ones hands up and saying, ” BUT I DIDN’T KNOW!” isn’t enough. If one claims to be a leader and then sets an agenda FOR CULTURE THAT LEADS TO MORE PROBLEMS, they should be held accountable. This, in turn, earns respect

There are plenty of feminists, myself and many others (some of whom are men) included, who believe that the liberation from oppressive gender roles depends on men & women working together. This entails willingness to work together and carve out time and space for compassionate dialogue to co-create a new paradigm.

Everyone should be allowed to be a whole person. When we can do that, we can raise healthy children and create a more welcoming world for them to also explore and discover the fullness of who they are. That’s my version of feminism, anyhow. In the words of Germaine Greer, ” The opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy, but fraternity”.

Anytime one partner finds themselves resenting their significant other, that person has personal work to do. Ideally, that person also possesses the courage to work it out without blaming or condemning their partner, feminism or anything else.

One big question is, SO WHAT if that woman loses respect for you when you show your true self? If she asked for you to reveal your true self and you do and she doesn’t like it, then ultimately you are much better off without her. Her respect for you isn’t really respect for you if it’s based on an illusion that you’re maintaining. No man should feel like he has to keep a woman’s respect at all costs, especially if the cost is playing a role that’s not true to who you are.

On some level, it may not even matter WHY her feelings have changed or whether she’s being fair or not, or consistent or not. At the end of the day, someone else’s disillusionment is their problem, not yours.

If she makes a request for you to more of a certain way, and you like it and she regrets it, then she has to deal with that. Maybe she should go off and deal with that somewhere else? It’s possible that her temporary loss of respect for you is simply one of the prices you have to pay for living an authentic life.

While I agree with you in spirit this is still something that is worth discussing. We often talk about how men are having trouble adjusting to a world where gender roles are no longer the same. But much less talked about is the reaction some women have when men try to be “modern men”. They often find themselves wanting someone more traditionally masculine, leaving men in an odd position.

Women differ from one another. There will always be women who prefer a man with a personality that is seen as “traditional masculinity”, and others who prefer men who are seen as more “modern”, and so on. And women who prefer the same in other women. And men who prefer the same in women and/or men. In the end, it’s all about being yourself and finding someone you like and who likes you back.

And really, it shouldn’t be that difficult to adjust to a world only because you can’t own women as property and aren’t supposed to be superior anymore.

I would suggest that my mother’s generation did it more often than not. In some cases it was the woman who was not emotionally engaged, in some cases the man. Men often cheated. Women withheld. Go back before birth control or further. Generational patterns were set that are still playing out.

One of the reasons men get so emotionally dependent, I’m going to suggest, is not because we’re emotionally fluent; it’s because we’re still very narrow about whom we can be emotionally fluent with, that so much emotional burden gets placed on our partners. Does that suggestion resonate with anyone?

I mean, ironically, as much as I complain that ex-girlfriends can pick up a new boyfriend within a week, and it always takes me at least a year (and I know I whinge about that a lot) it means I actually am not burdened with a fear of being single in the same way as most women are – being single holds no terrors for me – I’ve been there before. So in that sense I am not emotionally dependent in terms of being clingy, but in terms of laying emotional baggage on girlfriends when I have them – I know I’m guilty; and a lot of that is because she is the only person I feel I can be open with. Area for personal development identified!

I’m going on 5 years myself. It has taken me a very long time to recover from my last marriage but I have friends that have to line up a boyfriend before they break up with the one they have. What you’re saying has a lot of truth, at least for some.

Interesting article, good thing I found it before tackling the subject for an article of my own. I was actually discussing this last night when thinking about what to write on. Women love to say how sensitive men are sexy, yet every time they find a sensitive man, they drop them into the Friendzone!
Worst yet, they take that agressive go getter alpha male and change his ways. If they break up, now they have a sensitive man crying all over, blaming the fact that he became sensitive for what?

I am not promoting the Macho man, but removing the Warrior out of the Gentleman might not be such a good idea out of the Romantic Comedies that promote the sensitive man.

Good article that of course only scratches the surface of the social, biological and cultural of the relations between men and women. Part of it is that we’re not far enough along in the change to see something else. Many women were raised in both a traditional home yet in the world of the feminist perspective. So on one hand they want all that but don’t realize there’s a trade off. I want what I’m comfortable with. My dad was unemotional, breadwinner etc, and I want you to Ber that until I don’t.

Men are just the reverse. Raised the same, getting their cues from dad yet at the same time trying to learn the softer side of themselves and how to balance that expression. Truly committed feminists do more clearly state the breaking of the gender boundaries. I just think there aren’t enough of them who understand what that commitment really entails.

In most cases I have no issue being myself. I am sensitive and a feeling man, always have been. My wife gets me for the most part but every once in awhile thinks I should be more masculine as she expects that to be. Especially around others which I find most interesting, like she’s somewhat embarrassed that I don’t be more like them. But when were alone I don’t feel that. So I say the hell with it and try to be as consistent to myself as possible. If she doesn’t like that, and doesn’t really work that out for what’s inside her then I can’t help that and we then deasl with whatever fallout remains. Really not big of a deal.

I think people continue to habour the WRONG idea about feminism and what it stands for. You are thinking of the olden day feminism while the modern day feminism looks different. To help you understand, here is a qoute and a link to a great site about what modern day feminism is about.

“Letting Him Make All the Moves vs. Doing What You Feel

In popular culture and society, there’s this idea that even though women have made a lot of gains, they still shouldn’t be the person to initiate things in romantic or sexual relationships, particularly with men.

Women and feminine-presenting people are supposed to be the ones to be asked out, not the askers. They aren’t supposed to pay for a first date. They aren’t supposed to propose marriage.

Basically: Women and feminine-presenting people aren’t supposed to be active in relationships.

And if they are, it’s seen as foreign, and they are scolded for taking the masculinity (read: power) away from their partner.

And there’s this myth that says that feminism is the opposite of this – that women are supposed to be in charge, that the feminine is hailed as “better” – but that’s not true either.

I’m only sorry that this conversation so quickly became one about feminism. Not my intention at all. Some posters are very quick to attack feminism as the source of all problems. It is neither the source of all problems nor the solution to all problems. It is a diverse and very complex network of ideas that, like any ideology, can be used to hurt or heal.

“olden day feminism”? Are you referring to a few decades ago when feminists were fighting for the right to vote? Or in the 70s when feminists were fighting for the right to sign a lease or a bank loan without our husband’s or father’s signature?

I have seen this happen in heterosexual relationships as well. The current gendered power imbalance produces both male and female identities. Women do need to confront their own sexist conditioning as well as men.

I take offense with some of you overusing the word “feminism.” Why the negative connotation toward that word?
I have always considered myself a feminist, but now have a word for the rampant inequalities women face.
Feminists are not all nazi-feminists who burn their brasand hate all men. The word “feminist” to me means being a woman
living in a world of degradation, patriarchy and inequality and having to march and protest against the “war on women”. If you think there isn’t a war on women, you’re not paying attention. Moving backward in our “fight” is dismaying, to say the least.

I would have given my right leg to have a husband who was more engaged and more interested in our family and what it took to be the glue that held the family together. He was a “traditional” man of the fifties
who thought his only role in life was to earn enough money to buy our love. He had little respect for women and their powerful, strong role in society and wouldn’t/couldn’t allow his emotional side to show, as he thought it a sign of weakness. It was easier to remain disengaged in order to remain a “man”.

I’m hopeful, though. My sons and sons-in-law being of the younger generation and being the breadwinners
have somehow come to the realization that family is so much more important than the almighty dollar.
They are much more hands-on than the men of my generation and that’s a good thing.

I believe we are all subject to multiple layers of social and psychological conditioning around gender roles, and this is a complex issue from an emotional and psychological standpoint. It’s facile to blame it on feminism, as some of the above readers seem to. My own personal experience when my long-time spouse began to become more emotionally open and vulnerable was not loss of respect, but a much more primal kind of FEAR. I mean, I already knew I was messed up, so if he was equally messed up, where did that leave us? Also, if he was going to be THAT vulnerable, I had to step and and expose myself in new and different ways as well. Talk about scary. Fortunately, hard work, love, lots of therapy, a profound understanding of our respective attachment traumas, and sheer determination led us to deepen our relationship rather than chuck it. It’s not a walk in the park, by any means, but a little compassion goes a long way.

Instead of blaming women and feminism, which is both counter productive and not going to help fix anything, if we’re going to talk about the way women respond when men behave in an emotionally sensitive way, we should be talking about the expression of certain social pressures. This is not a conversation I’ve seen happen (I wish it was), but what we find desirable in others is highly, HIGHLY informed by culture. Orientation may be fixed, but what we do with it appears to be variable as hell.

I agree that women sometimes respond with rejection, and that this can be very discouraging to men trying to acknowledge and respond to requests for them to be more sensitive, but a thing to keep in mind is that when women are uncomfortable, they are responding from the same social pressure that sexualizes and fetishizes male emotional maiming.

It’s less a matter of it being something women do on purpose as an offshoot of the same “naturalized” pressure to believe that being desirable or powerful for men is a matter of them being emotionally unresponsive. It’s also the same dynamics that fetishizes female dependence and inability/incompetence. The source is the same–the maintenance on a system of power hierarchies that draws its categorization from the idea that gender is dichotomous, and that anything which deviates from the dichotomy is wrong and should be punished.

If you understand how powerful a force that is in our lives, you understand why it is a sexualized dicotomy. What better to motivate maintenance on the idea that women are always weak and men are always strong than to link it to sexuality?

I really wish this was a conversation we were having, instead of the comments blaming women and/or feminism for pointing out that this is a problem–the problem is shared, and while it manifests differently, I assure you that being an aggressive woman causes similar gut rejections from otherwise nice people. It runs contrary to all the lessons we absorb about what is good, right, necessary and attractive with regard to gender.

And no, feminists aren’t and can’t get it perfect all the time. No one who actually knows anything about feminism believes is it perfect and will always offer the perfect road map–if you do a little historical reading, you’ll be able to trace a lot of debate, some fracturing, and a multitude of opinions on these ideas. It’s a big tent and there are a lot of people in it.

And yes, this creates a hell of a dilemma for men that needs to be worked on and examined, in which both men and women are complicit. I’d like it if we were having that conversation, as well.

But why shoot the messenger (feminism) for pointing out that the message blows? It isn’t as if feminism only discusses women and things about women, or only discusses what’s wrong with men. There’s plenty of problems to go around.

(For that matter, please feel free to actually read some feminism. Ask me for references. I’d be delighted to share.)

The problems described are hardly new, but maybe seen in a new light as male and female switch roles here. Working husbands sure have experienced these feelings of burden and jealousy towards their housewifes before. But this is not a problem of gender, it is a problem of capitalism that creates these unbalanced and ridiculous values of work. Though no less hard, stressful and important, homemaking is often not recognized as work by the earning part. When effiency and income define a person’s social worth, the supporter’s work is easily minified, no matter the gender.

[…] That may be one of the most critical things you can do. This is a time bomb waiting to go off. best tattoos calgary This relates to best tattoo artist twin cities well, “Don’t put all your eggs in one […]

Grief is a deeply personal process. Common clichés do more harm than good. How to help men grieve. Many people have not lost someone close. They haven’t experienced grief, so they say things that make[Read More…]

Her husband is reawakening and chasing his dreams. Here’s how she’s supporting him and what she’s learned. — My husband is in the middle of a reawakening of sorts. And it’s totally my fault. You see,[Read More…]